Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

State v Tagi [2021] FJMC 2; Criminal Case 360 of 2016 (4 January 2021)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
EXTENDED CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

High Court Criminal Case No. 97 of 2016
Magistrates’ Court Criminal Case No. 360 of 2016

STATE

v.

MANASA TAGI

For the State : Sergeant R. Ram, of counsel, of the Police Prosecution Department

For the Accused: Mr. W. Ravuni, of counsel, of the Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1. You entered a guilty plea to the charge of “Aggravated Robbery” contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2009 in that you and another “on the 15^th day of February 2016 at Vatuwaqa in the Central Division robbed Mohammed Nazim of $60.00 cash.”
   
2. This guilty plea was entered at the conclusion of the State’s case and after a finding that you had a case to answer. You said in open Court that everything that the complainant, Mohammed Nazim had said in Court was true. The evidence showed that on the night of 15^th February 2016, you were with a group of boys and girls who had stopped his taxi. He stopped his car and reversed to where they were. A girl got into the passenger seat and you came around to his side of the car and grabbed $60.00 from his pocket. You punched him on the head and then ran away. Another person followed suit and punched him on the cheek before also running away. The girl in the front seat used these attacks as opportunity to grab his coin box containing about $10 - $15 and running away with it. The matter was reported to the Police and you and another were ultimately apprehended.
   
3. I am satisfied that you entered your guilty plea voluntarily. I find you guilty and I convict you of “Aggravated Robbery” as charged.
   
4. The maximum penalty for “Aggravated Robbery” is imprisonment for 20 years. The tariff for “Aggravated Robbery” ranges from imprisonment for 18 months to 16 years: see Raqauqau v. State [2008] FJCA 34; AAU0100.2007 (4 August 2008); State v. Tamani [2011] FJHC 725; Wise v. State [2015] FJSC 7; CAV00042015 (24 April 2015); Nawalu v. State [2013] FJSC 11; CAV0012.12 (28 August 2013) and
   
5. This crime involved the aggravated robbery of a public service provider. Sentences usually fall within the range of 04 to 10 years: see State v. Tamani, supra and State v. Matagasau – Sentence [2019] FJHC 633; HAC17.2019 (28 June 2019).
   
6. In mitigation, you said that the taxi driver had driven past your group two times. The road had been under construction at the time and your group had asked him to go slow down the first time. When he passed, water splashed on you and your group. When Mohammed Nazim passed by a second time, you swore at him and he stopped to confront you. When he did, you walked up to him and punched him and you and others took his money. You sought Mohammed Nazim’s forgiveness in open court.
   
7. This is no excuse for what you and your group did. I pick a starting point of 04 years imprisonment.
   
8. There are no discernable aggravating factors available on the Facts before me. At least none not already subsumed into the charge against you. I note that you are 22 years old. You have previous convictions for “Aggravated Burglary” and “Theft” for 2014, 2015 and 2016 cases which were handed down between the years 2014 to 2016.
   
9. Your father and your uncle testified on your behalf. Your father testified that he had three sons. One has, unfortunately, passed away. Another son is in prison. In a bid to divert you from the same path, he sent you to the village. He believes you committed these crimes as a result of peer pressure. He testified that he has noted a significant change in you since you went to the village. It is as if you have finally found your purpose. He was grateful that you embraced village life and seemed to thrive there. He sought forgiveness from Mohammed Nazim for his son’s wrongdoing.
   
10. Your uncle testified. In addition to being a lay preacher, he is also Turaga ni Koro of your village. He said that you had been in the village for 11 months and in that time he witnessed a significant change in you. You have become a much better person. You are now with a good group of young people in the village. You all work hard. You greatly reduced your alcohol intake and you have become very involved in tending to the farm in the village. On behalf of the family, he sought forgiveness from the complainant in open court.
    
11. The complainant testified too. He said that he forgave you since he does not wish you to go to prison. He asked you and your family to pay him $160.00 in compensation for the money taken and for his lost income over two days.
    
12. I reduce your sentence by 01 year for the fact that you are a young offender. Your sentence is now imprisonment for 03 years. I further reduce your sentence by 01 year for your guilty plea. Granted it was not an early guilty plea but in all the circumstances and with the benefit of observing your behavior and demeanor in Court during trial and during your sentence hearing, I am satisfied that it was a genuinely entered one. Your sentence is now imprisonment for 02 years.
    
13. In all the circumstances of the case, I find you are a good prospect for rehabilitation. It seems that you have genuinely made a concerted effort to turn your life around. Rehabilitation is as important a sentencing consideration as personal and general deterrence. If courts make no effort to recognize genuine reformation in a person, then persons with criminal records will have no incentive to reform. We must incentivize genuine change in as much as we are called upon to deter criminal behavior.
    
14. In all the circumstances of the case, I sentence you to imprisonment for 02 years suspended for a period of 05 years. You must not commit another crime in the next 02 years. If you do, expect to serve the 02 year term I suspended for your benefit today.
    
15. I make no orders in respect of compensation, compensation not being within my purview to grant. In my view, the conviction and the imprisonment term of 02 years suspended for 05 years meets the interests of justice in all the circumstances of this case.
    
16. In the result, and for the reasons set out above, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 02 years suspended for a period of 05 years.
    
17. Any party not satisfied with the decision of this Court is at liberty to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days.
    

.........................................
Seini K Puamau
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

Dated at Suva this 04^th day of January 2021.